OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!

"Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 01/06/2010 05:00 PM, CW wrote:
>
>> Not going to change anybody's mind. According to the envirowakos, the
>> cold
>> weather you are seeing is due to global warming. I still haven't figured
>> out
>> how to make ice cubes in my oven but, according to them, it is possible.
>> Guess I'm just not doing it right.
>
> It's possible to use heat energy to move heat from one place to another.
> For several years I used a refrigerator that ran on a kerosene flame.
>
> Chris

MANY years ago it was comon for a niver home to have air conditioning. The
air conditionor was simply a group of gas lamps that burned to creat an air
flow from the outer windows to the center higher and open section of the
house.

"Leon" wrote
>
> AAMOF Polar Bears were actually found in Texas, rounded up and returned
> to their northern home as mentioned in a recent Texas magazine
> publication.
You guys had a polar bear invasion?? I never heard of that. They didn't
walk all the way to Texas did they?

Now this is a nature story that my missus would love to hear about. Any
details?

"Leon" wrote
>
> And just to put a different spin on things. This flock of sheep that buy
> into the global warming hoax are actually causing the problem themselves
> by their actions. When we were poluting something fierce back in in the
> 50's 60's and 70's we had no global warming. It was not until we started
> BS programs to clean up the environment that we caused GW.
>
You win the politically incorrect prize for the day. Greenies causing GW??
LOL

Whenever a passionate greenie starts to lecture me on how I am damaging the
planet, I tell them to kill themsilves to reduce the strain on the earth's
ecosystems. That shuts them up pretty quickly.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Leon" wrote
>>>
>>> AAMOF Polar Bears were actually found in Texas, rounded up and returned
>>> to their northern home as mentioned in a recent Texas magazine
>>> publication.
>> You guys had a polar bear invasion?? I never heard of that. They didn't
>> walk all the way to Texas did they?
>>
>> Now this is a nature story that my missus would love to hear about. Any
>> details?
>>
>
> Texas Parks and Wildlife
>
> http://www.tpwmagazine.com/ktw/media/january-10-vol.2-issue5.pdf
>
> Near the picture of the lizard, the box titled Damage Doers. Read the
> entire box. ;~)
>
>
Now that is something I would like to see. A Texas polar bear roundup. Maybe
we can get swingman to lead that little posse.

MMMmmmmmmm......, I wonder what barbecued polar bear meat would taste like?
Don't say it tastes like chicken!

As for the fire ant problem, I suggest we use a liberal/greenie solution.
Condoms!!

My wife had a friend send her a picture from South Carolina of a frozen
swamp.

Is this a sign of global warming?

It don't quite look right.

Doug Miller wrote:

> There was a time when nearly 100% of the world's population,
> scientists
> and otherwise, believed the earth to be flat.

It would appear the Flat Earth Society still has an active membership.

Lew

On Jan 7, 5:54=A0pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Doug Miller wrote:
>
> >> And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only. :-)
> >> Mariners knew
> >> for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved -- what other
> >> explanation can there be for the fact that you can see the masts of a
> >> distant
> >> ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring cultures,
> >> though, had no
> >> such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat, right?
>
> > The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be answered by positing=
a
> > hill (of water) between the ships.
>
> > As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there be," ignorance o=
f
> > any other possibility is not a proof. Sherlock Holmes said: "If you
> > eliminate all other possibilities, whatever is left must be the answer"=
is
> > correct as far as it goes. The fact remains that one cannot eliminate a=
ll
> > other possibilities. There always remain the cases of miracles,
> > hallucination, lies, mistakes, and a host of others. Absence of evidenc=
e
> > is not evidence of anything.
>
> > As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a house, surveyin=
g a
> > lot, plowing a field, laying out a road, building a railroad (except fo=
r
> > the hills), and so on. Just like Newtonian mechanics are the ultimate
> > truths for bowling, billiards, or shooting a scrot who breaks into your
> > shed.
>
> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the universe is Flat.

Vertical or horizontal?

Leon wrote:
> "Nantz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:af55aad5-38bf-446e-ad1a-7a6d490ae479@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 6, 6:05 pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> When 95% of the world's climatologists agree on this I have to believe
> them. When 95% of the world's politicians agree on something, there's
> still room for doubt.
> Nantz
>
>
> Apparently the climatologists are witnessing that they do not have
> enough data to form anything close to an accurate conclusion in their
> life times.

Less than 50 years ago, 100% of geologists were convinced of the theory of
"continental drift." In was only in the 1960's that the notion of "Plate
Tectonics" became popular. Now 100% of geologists do NOT accept continental
drift. A hundred years ago, 100% of physicists held that Newtonian mechanics
was the cat's pajamas. Now, 0% of physicists accept Newton as the ultimate
truth-teller.

Be that as it may, there ARE disciplines where majority vote determines
truth (Romance literature, history, etc.). In math and the hard sciences,
truth is empirical. If something cannot be proven, it is not "truth." It is
hypothesis. Or conjecture.

Compare the two observational "sciences:" Climate Change and Astronomy.

By careful measurement, astronomy has (with the help of other branches of
physics and mathematics), worked out the movement of the planets, motions of
the galaxies, wound back the clock to the first milliseconds of the
universe, and projected everything into the unimaginable future.

The Climate Change people's theories can't wind back their equations to get
the climate 100 years ago and they can't predict the weather next month.

The difference between Climate Change theoreticians and Astrologers is not
great.

On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:58:06 -0600, Chris Friesen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 01/06/2010 04:47 PM, RonB wrote:
>> Al Gore take note.
>>
>> Kansas gets cold, but sub zero in the southeastern part of the state
>> is unusual. Occasionally, we might see -1 or -3 and that is fairly
>> rare (one or two times/year, if at all.) We make up for the really
>> cold temperatures with wind.
>
>There is a difference between weather and climate.
>
>Also, the world is bigger than just North America. 2009 was Australia's
>3rd hottest year on record since 1910 (and the warmest winter on
>record). It was South Korea's 5th warmest since 1912. There are
>probably other similar stats but those were just the first couple hits I
>found.

Regardless of the truth of the entire Global Climate Change debate,
you just used facts and logic.

I'm quite sure that's considered rude.

When the Dow Jones drops on a single day -- or for a single component
stock -- I'll wait to see if these same people say that stocks are
simply a bad long-term investment.

On 1/7/2010 6:18 PM, Leon wrote:
> "Lee Michaels"<leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Leon" wrote
>>>
>>> AAMOF Polar Bears were actually found in Texas, rounded up and returned
>>> to their northern home as mentioned in a recent Texas magazine
>>> publication.
>> You guys had a polar bear invasion?? I never heard of that. They didn't
>> walk all the way to Texas did they?
>>
>> Now this is a nature story that my missus would love to hear about. Any
>> details?
>>
>
> Texas Parks and Wildlife
>
> http://www.tpwmagazine.com/ktw/media/january-10-vol.2-issue5.pdf
>
> Near the picture of the lizard, the box titled Damage Doers. Read the
> entire box. ;~)

Why not ... IIRC, it's snowed in Houston three times in the last five
years, and two years in a row. The two earliest snowfalls on record are
2008, and the one a few weeks back in 2009, that set the record for the
earliest ... last time it came anywhere near that was in 1944.

This is Houston, fercrissakes ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Jan 6, 7:05=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/6/2010 5:56 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>
> > I question any conclusion when some one tells me there is a 0.4 degree
> > warming trend when at any given time the temperature variation across
> > the total face of the earth on any given day is is over 100 degrees.
> > Based on the precision of the average temperature measurements that is
> > insignificant. If you know nothing else about statistic do the Student'=
s
> > T test on the data. In this data t =3D <0.1 to be significant it would
> > need to be greater that 2.8. I suspect there would be that much varianc=
e
> > (0,4 degrees)in the temperature with in a couple of hundred feet of any
> > one temperature measurement point
>
> Uhh, uhm, Keith ... if you please, this is not science, this is
> politicoreligousity.
>
> Please keep that in mind when introducing scientific reasoning and
> accountability into an AGW discussions.
>
> The cabal thanks you ...
>
> <there is no cabal>
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)

AGW.... Al Ghore Witchcraft?

On Jan 6, 5:47=A0pm, RonB <[email protected]> wrote:
> Al Gore take note.

I live in Tennessee and am embarrassed that this is his home state.

"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" wrote
>>
>> And just to put a different spin on things. This flock of sheep that buy
>> into the global warming hoax are actually causing the problem themselves
>> by their actions. When we were poluting something fierce back in in the
>> 50's 60's and 70's we had no global warming. It was not until we started
>> BS programs to clean up the environment that we caused GW.
>>
> You win the politically incorrect prize for the day. Greenies causing
> GW?? LOL

THANK YOU! LOL



>
> Whenever a passionate greenie starts to lecture me on how I am damaging
> the planet, I tell them to kill themsilves to reduce the strain on the
> earth's ecosystems. That shuts them up pretty quickly.

I figured their jaws would have hit the ground. ;~) That is so ruuuude.
LOL

On Jan 8, 1:47=A0pm, [email protected] (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
>
>
>
>
> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Zootal wrote:
> >>>>>> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the universe
> >>>>>> is Flat.
>
> >>>>> The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.
>
> >>>> But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical
> >>>> proofs.
>
> >>> Which cosmologists are these?
>
> >> There are several models of the universe, and IIRC all of them
> >> provide for a curvature. The exception would be the universe
> >> described as a Euclidean space, but I don't think any cosmologists
> >> buy into that particular theory. The question is not "is the universe
> >> curved", but "how exactly is it curved?"
>
> >Yep, but Lobby Dosser was asserting that they had decreed it to be flat =
and
> >I want to know which particular cosmologists _he_ has in mind.
>
> Those following the Cosmo-line, I guess. =A0But it's a sticky subject. =
=A0

Are you stringing us along?

On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:58:06 -0600, the infamous Chris Friesen
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>On 01/06/2010 04:47 PM, RonB wrote:
>> Al Gore take note.
>>
>> Kansas gets cold, but sub zero in the southeastern part of the state
>> is unusual. Occasionally, we might see -1 or -3 and that is fairly
>> rare (one or two times/year, if at all.) We make up for the really
>> cold temperatures with wind.
>
>There is a difference between weather and climate.
>
>Also, the world is bigger than just North America. 2009 was Australia's
>3rd hottest year on record since 1910 (and the warmest winter on
>record). It was South Korea's 5th warmest since 1912. There are
>probably other similar stats but those were just the first couple hits I
>found.

That's what cracks me up about you alarmists. You say "W're all gonna
die as it gets hotter and hotter." then you turn around and make
quotes like that. "3rd hottest" and "5th warmest" mean that weather
has already been hotter than now HOW MANY TIMES?

The fact that the last decade hasn't become hotter should be a clue to
you guys, too.

Keep Googlin'! Eventually you'll stumble over an unpoliticized
version of the truth. <g>

--
We rightly care about the environment. But our neurotic obsession
with carbon betrays an inability to distinguish between pollution
and the stuff of life itself. --Bret Stephens, WSJ 1/5/10

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> There was a time when nearly 100% of the world's population, scientists
>> and otherwise, believed the earth to be flat.
>
> It would appear the Flat Earth Society still has an active membership.
>


And they are active in the global warming hoax, I bet.

On Jan 7, 10:58=A0pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Jan 7, 5:54 pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > Doug Miller wrote:
>
> > >> And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only. :-)
> > >> Mariners knew
> > >> for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved -- what othe=
r
> > >> explanation can there be for the fact that you can see the masts of =
a
> > >> distant
> > >> ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring cultures,
> > >> though, had no
> > >> such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat, right?
>
> > > The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be answered by positi=
ng
> > > a
> > > hill (of water) between the ships.
>
> > > As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there be," ignorance=
of
> > > any other possibility is not a proof. Sherlock Holmes said: "If you
> > > eliminate all other possibilities, whatever is left must be the answe=
r"
> > > is
> > > correct as far as it goes. The fact remains that one cannot eliminate
> > > all
> > > other possibilities. There always remain the cases of miracles,
> > > hallucination, lies, mistakes, and a host of others. Absence of evide=
nce
> > > is not evidence of anything.
>
> > > As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a house, survey=
ing
> > > a
> > > lot, plowing a field, laying out a road, building a railroad (except =
for
> > > the hills), and so on. Just like Newtonian mechanics are the ultimate
> > > truths for bowling, billiards, or shooting a scrot who breaks into yo=
ur
> > > shed.
>
> > Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the universe is Fla=
t.
>
> Vertical or horizontal?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Depends if you're going uphill or down.

Of COURSE!!! *slaps forehead*

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>"Nantz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:af55aad5-38bf-446e-ad1a-7a6d490ae479@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>>On Jan 6, 6:05 pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>When 95% of the world's climatologists agree on this I have to believe
>>them. When 95% of the world's politicians agree on something, there's
>>still room for doubt.
>>Nantz
>>
>>
>>Apparently the climatologists are witnessing that they do not have enough
>>data to form anything close to an accurate conclusion in their life times.
>
> And that's really the essence of the matter: thinking of climate in
> human-centric, rather than planet-centric, terms. The proponents of AGW
> make
> two UNstated assumptions beyond the obvious, stated one that human
> activity is
> causing the earth to get warmer. Both of these unstated assumptions are
> unproven at best, and at least one of them is almost certainly wrong:
>
> First, that conditions as they exist now are normal or typical. A good
> friend
> of mine has an MS in geology; he tells me that during most of the planet's
> existence, it's been *much* warmer than it is now, and that we're actually
> still *in* the last Ice Age.

And the term "normal" used my most "weather readers" on the news is a pet
peave of mine. Daily when they are trying to jazz up the news they recite
that the temperature is "x" degrees above or below normal. That is the most
stupid comment I have ever heard said over and over.

First off when talking in terms of climate temperature "normal" is NOT a
constant. It is normal for temperatures to constantly fluxuate from day to
day, year to year, decade to decade.

The term that the "weather readers" are searching for is "Average". The
temp today is/was "x" degrees below/above "average".

When you take data and add it up and divide by the number of pieces of data
you don't get normal, you get an average.


>
> Second, that conditions as they exist now are optimal and desirable --
> that
> any change from currrent conditions *must* be a change for the worse. In
> fact,
> most GW models project an increase mostly in nighttime temperatures (IOW,
> higher lows), which among other things will lengthen the growing season in
> many parts of the world, and make agriculture possible in places where it
> is
> not now. This strikes me as a Good Thing, not a Bad Thing.

Exactly, who is to say what the actual optimum temperature is. So what if
there is more coastal flooding, so what if the polar bears have to swim to
the south pole to reach their paradise. Living creatures adapt. AAMOF
Polar Bears were actually found in Texas, rounded up and returned to their
northern home as mentioned in a recent Texas magazine publication. Coastal
flooding, that is nothing new, happens every time there is a storm.

On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:41:39 -0800 (PST), the infamous Nantz
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>On Jan 6, 6:05 pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Uhh, uhm, Keith ... if you please, this is not science, this is
>> politicoreligousity.
>>
>> Please keep that in mind when introducing scientific reasoning and
>> accountability into an AGW discussions.
>>
>> The cabal thanks you ...
>>
>> <there is no cabal>
>>
>> --www.e-woodshop.net
>> Last update: 10/22/08
>> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
>When 95% of the world's climatologists agree on this I have to believe
>them. When 95% of the world's politicians agree on something, there's
>still room for doubt.

See recent headlines for the CRU and East Anglia email, Nantz.

--
We rightly care about the environment. But our neurotic obsession
with carbon betrays an inability to distinguish between pollution
and the stuff of life itself. --Bret Stephens, WSJ 1/5/10

It's winter in Kansas

Oh the gentle breezes blow
Seventy miles an hour
And twenty-five below.

Oh, how I love Kansas
When the snow's up to your butt
You take a breath of winter
And your nose gets frozen shut.

Yes, the weather here is wonderful
So I guess I'll hang around
I could never leave Kansas
Cuz I'm frozen to the ground!

On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 17:26:48 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>On Jan 6, 7:05 pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 1/6/2010 5:56 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>
>> > I question any conclusion when some one tells me there is a 0.4 degree
>> > warming trend when at any given time the temperature variation across
>> > the total face of the earth on any given day is is over 100 degrees.
>> > Based on the precision of the average temperature measurements that is
>> > insignificant. If you know nothing else about statistic do the Student's
>> > T test on the data. In this data t = <0.1 to be significant it would
>> > need to be greater that 2.8. I suspect there would be that much variance
>> > (0,4 degrees)in the temperature with in a couple of hundred feet of any
>> > one temperature measurement point
>>
>> Uhh, uhm, Keith ... if you please, this is not science, this is
>> politicoreligousity.
>>
>> Please keep that in mind when introducing scientific reasoning and
>> accountability into an AGW discussions.
>>
>> The cabal thanks you ...
>>
>> <there is no cabal>
>>
>
>AGW.... Al Ghore Witchcraft?

Androgynous alGore Whorosity?

Ackshully, you guys are missing the proper acronym. It's AGWK, or
Anthropomorphic Global Warming, Kumbaya. You must pray afterward and
anthro means man-made. We killed the planet and we're all gonna die!

The only problem is, the water and air in the USA are cleaner now,
with more population, than they were 30 years ago. The USA now has
more forested land than it did a century ago. We have more people but
the farms are more productive. We recycle a whole lot and we have no
shortages of minerals. The idiot alarmists are wrong on absolutely
everything they spout off about.

For more REAL info, see Bailey's _Earth Report 2000_ and Huber's _Hard
Green_. I wish everyone on the planet could read them. Then we could
sit down and talk about how to truly fix our problems. People don't
have to die from the "solutions".

--
We rightly care about the environment. But our neurotic obsession
with carbon betrays an inability to distinguish between pollution
and the stuff of life itself. --Bret Stephens, WSJ 1/5/10

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:51:57 -0600, the infamous "Leon"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 17:26:48 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
>Snip
>
>
>>>
>>>AGW.... Al Ghore Witchcraft?
>>
>> Androgynous alGore Whorosity?
>>
>> Ackshully, you guys are missing the proper acronym. It's AGWK, or
>> Anthropomorphic Global Warming, Kumbaya. You must pray afterward and
>> anthro means man-made. We killed the planet and we're all gonna die!
>>
>> The only problem is, the water and air in the USA are cleaner now,
>> with more population, than they were 30 years ago. The USA now has
>> more forested land than it did a century ago. We have more people but
>> the farms are more productive. We recycle a whole lot and we have no
>> shortages of minerals. The idiot alarmists are wrong on absolutely
>> everything they spout off about.
>>
>> For more REAL info, see Bailey's _Earth Report 2000_ and Huber's _Hard
>> Green_. I wish everyone on the planet could read them. Then we could
>> sit down and talk about how to truly fix our problems. People don't
>> have to die from the "solutions".
>>
>> --
>> We rightly care about the environment. But our neurotic obsession
>> with carbon betrays an inability to distinguish between pollution
>> and the stuff of life itself. --Bret Stephens, WSJ 1/5/10
>
>And just to put a different spin on things. This flock of sheep that buy
>into the global warming hoax are actually causing the problem themselves by
>their actions. When we were poluting something fierce back in in the 50's
>60's and 70's we had no global warming. It was not until we started BS
>programs to clean up the environment that we caused GW.

Did anyone ever get a tally of the CO2 spewed by all those guys going
to HopenChangen and renting upwards of 1,300 limousines for the party
in the blizzard there?

--
We rightly care about the environment. But our neurotic obsession
with carbon betrays an inability to distinguish between pollution
and the stuff of life itself. --Bret Stephens, WSJ 1/5/10

England is really heating up too!!

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/GreatBritainsnow.jpg

"RonB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:d5c0a5c4-ff01-4563-9006-68b20d4597f7@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Al Gore take note.
>
> Kansas gets cold, but sub zero in the southeastern part of the state
> is unusual. Occasionally, we might see -1 or -3 and that is fairly
> rare (one or two times/year, if at all.) We make up for the really
> cold temperatures with wind.
>
> Our next few nights are forecast in the -5 to -10 range. The
> cattlemen are busy and nervous.
>

I heard a couple from Central America commenting that you never had to wear
a coat while there, for the last several years a coat is required.

On Jan 7, 12:32=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:18:13 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
> > As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a house, surveyin=
g
> > a lot, plowing a field, laying out a road, building a railroad (except
> > for the hills), and so on.
>
> I can assure you that surveyors do take into account the curvature or the
> Earth because the distance between lines of longitude varies with the
> distance from the equator. =A0I did surveying software back in the '70s a=
nd
> know whereof I speak :-).
>
> --
> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Not to mention geodesic aberrations due to the fact that the Earth is
not a perfect sphere.

I said not to mention it. *S*

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:11:42 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:

> And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only. :-) Mariners
> knew for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved -- what
> other explanation can there be for the fact that you can see the masts
> of a distant ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring
> cultures, though, had no such reference points -- the earth is
> "obviously" flat, right?

Actually, I thought of mentioning that. But those mariners seem to have
had a remarkable lack of success convincing the landlubbers of the facts
as they saw them. And I seem to remember reading of a definite fear
among some sailors of falling off the edge of the world. So it wasn't
altogether a landlubber vs mariner thing.

But it's refreshing to discuss history with you rather than politics :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:17:49 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

> The notion that the church wouldn't allow science is something that was
> made up in the 1800s. Modern historians have discovered that this was
> not the case. In fact some of the key ideas of modern science came from
> medieval monks.

"But it *does* move!" Quote from a somewhat famous heresy trial.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:18:13 -0600, HeyBub wrote:

> As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a house, surveying
> a lot, plowing a field, laying out a road, building a railroad (except
> for the hills), and so on.

I can assure you that surveyors do take into account the curvature or the
Earth because the distance between lines of longitude varies with the
distance from the equator. I did surveying software back in the '70s and
know whereof I speak :-).



--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:20:36 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> There was a time when nearly 100% of the world's population,
>> scientists
>> and otherwise, believed the earth to be flat.
>
>It would appear the Flat Earth Society still has an active membership.

FS: one slightly used, but still entirely functional rectilineator.

Accepting offers.

On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:00:34 -0800, "CW" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"RonB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:d5c0a5c4-ff01-4563-9006-68b20d4597f7@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> Al Gore take note.
>>
>> Kansas gets cold, but sub zero in the southeastern part of the state
>> is unusual. Occasionally, we might see -1 or -3 and that is fairly
>> rare (one or two times/year, if at all.) We make up for the really
>> cold temperatures with wind.
>>
>> Our next few nights are forecast in the -5 to -10 range. The
>> cattlemen are busy and nervous.
>>
>
>Not going to change anybody's mind. According to the envirowakos, the cold
>weather you are seeing is due to global warming. I still haven't figured out
>how to make ice cubes in my oven but, according to them, it is possible.
>Guess I'm just not doing it right.

Proportional control swing? We are just on a low swing.

;>

Mark

"RonB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:d5c0a5c4-ff01-4563-9006-68b20d4597f7@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Al Gore take note.
>
> Kansas gets cold, but sub zero in the southeastern part of the state
> is unusual. Occasionally, we might see -1 or -3 and that is fairly
> rare (one or two times/year, if at all.) We make up for the really
> cold temperatures with wind.
>
> Our next few nights are forecast in the -5 to -10 range. The
> cattlemen are busy and nervous.
>

Not going to change anybody's mind. According to the envirowakos, the cold
weather you are seeing is due to global warming. I still haven't figured out
how to make ice cubes in my oven but, according to them, it is possible.
Guess I'm just not doing it right.

Robert Bonomi wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Zootal wrote:
>>>>>>> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the universe
>>>>>>> is Flat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical
>>>>> proofs.
>>>>
>>>> Which cosmologists are these?
>>>
>>> There are several models of the universe, and IIRC all of them
>>> provide for a curvature. The exception would be the universe
>>> described as a Euclidean space, but I don't think any cosmologists
>>> buy into that particular theory. The question is not "is the universe
>>> curved", but "how exactly is it curved?"
>>
>>Yep, but Lobby Dosser was asserting that they had decreed it to be flat
>>and I want to know which particular cosmologists _he_ has in mind.
>
> Those following the Cosmo-line, I guess. But it's a sticky subject.

A little kerosene will clean that right up

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

J. Clarke wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>> "Nantz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:af55aad5-38bf-446e-ad1a-7a6d490ae479@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jan 6, 6:05 pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> When 95% of the world's climatologists agree on this I have to
>>> believe them. When 95% of the world's politicians agree on
>>> something, there's still room for doubt.
>>> Nantz
>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently the climatologists are witnessing that they do not have
>>> enough data to form anything close to an accurate conclusion in
>>> their life times.
>>
>> Less than 50 years ago, 100% of geologists were convinced of the
>> theory of "continental drift." In was only in the 1960's that the
>> notion of "Plate Tectonics" became popular. Now 100% of geologists do
>> NOT accept continental drift.
>
> Uh, try that one again. "Plate tectonics" _is_ "continental drift".
>
Uh, not exactly. "Continental drift" was the hypothesis that continents
move around, first put forward in the 16th Century. "Plate Tectonics" (PT)
is the mechanism by which the movement takes place. Until PT, all manner of
explanations were offered as to the possible cause of the movement (if any).

"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" wrote
>>
>> AAMOF Polar Bears were actually found in Texas, rounded up and returned
>> to their northern home as mentioned in a recent Texas magazine
>> publication.
> You guys had a polar bear invasion?? I never heard of that. They didn't
> walk all the way to Texas did they?
>
> Now this is a nature story that my missus would love to hear about. Any
> details?
>

Texas Parks and Wildlife

http://www.tpwmagazine.com/ktw/media/january-10-vol.2-issue5.pdf

Near the picture of the lizard, the box titled Damage Doers. Read the
entire box. ;~)

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 02:26:19 -0800, LDosser wrote:

> J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> LDosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LDosser wrote:

*Enough already!* Learn to snip!

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Chris Friesen <[email protected]> writes:
>On 01/06/2010 04:47 PM, RonB wrote:
>> Al Gore take note.
>>
>> Kansas gets cold, but sub zero in the southeastern part of the state
>> is unusual. Occasionally, we might see -1 or -3 and that is fairly
>> rare (one or two times/year, if at all.) We make up for the really
>> cold temperatures with wind.
>
>There is a difference between weather and climate.
>
>Also, the world is bigger than just North America. 2009 was Australia's
>3rd hottest year on record since 1910 (and the warmest winter on

Not based on rural stations. see the darwin station analysis. The
"heat" in 2009 oz is mostly UHI.

scott

> In any case, Galileo was tried mainly because he went out of his way to
> piss
> off the Church--he may not have intended to but he managed it
> anyway--today
> he'd have fit in just fine in the community of annoying netloons who even
> if
> they are right get ignored because the alienate everybody who comes in
> contact with them. If he'd listened to advice and followed the rules, one
> of which is that if you want to say something contrary to doctrine you
> present it as an idea to be discussed, not as an absolute truth, and let
> the
> heirarchy beat on it at their leisure, then he'd have been in no trouble
> at
> all, but he didn't do that. It didn't help that when he finally did add a
> disclaimer to that effect he did it in a manner which could be regarded as
> a
> sarcastic stab at the Pope, and that's exactly how the Pope interpreted
> it.

One of the best writings I've ever read about Galileo and his issues with
the church was written by Former Regan area dude, Dinesh D'Souza in a book
called, "What's So Great About Christianity."

As someone who vomits internally (???) at the thought of Christian practices
that have done so much damage to the "essence" of Christianity, this was one
of the best books I have ever read. Too deep in many places for me, but a
keeper for sure.

I've given a copy to a half dozen people or so and except for one, they have
all done the same. Very impressive writing whether you are looking for real
answers or looking to see why Christianity is doomed if it goes the way of
the Bible Belt, etc.

Regards,
Joe Agro, Jr.
(800) 871-5022
01.908.542.0244
Automatic / Pneumatic Drills: http://www.AutoDrill.com
Multiple Spindle Drills: http://www.Multi-Drill.com
Production Tapping: http://Production-Tapping-Equipment.com/
Flagship Site: http://www.Drill-N-Tap.com
VIDEOS: http://www.youtube.com/user/AutoDrill

V8013-R

In article <[email protected]>,
J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>LDosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Do you have someting peer-reviewed?
>>
>> Nope. Heard it in a lecture.
>
>Are you sure you understood correctly? Carroll seems to accept General
>Relativity, which does not allow flat spacetime in a real universe.

Yeah, well. that's easy to explain. Most people live in a 'complex'
univers -- part imaginary -- so the arbitrary restrictions of a 'real'
universe don't apply.


*GRIN*

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Zootal wrote:
>>>>>>>> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the universe
>>>>>>>> is Flat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical
>>>>>> proofs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which cosmologists are these?
>>>>
>>>> There are several models of the universe, and IIRC all of them
>>>> provide for a curvature. The exception would be the universe
>>>> described as a Euclidean space, but I don't think any cosmologists
>>>> buy into that particular theory. The question is not "is the universe
>>>> curved", but "how exactly is it curved?"
>>>
>>>Yep, but Lobby Dosser was asserting that they had decreed it to be flat
>>>and I want to know which particular cosmologists _he_ has in mind.
>>
>> Those following the Cosmo-line, I guess. But it's a sticky subject.
>
> A little kerosene will clean that right up

With a match, it makes light work of the problem.

In article <[email protected]>,
LDosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:5ee212db-8dd0-45c3-8273-c8bee77857fd@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>On Jan 8, 1:47 pm, [email protected] (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Zootal wrote:
>> >>>>>> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the universe
>> >>>>>> is Flat.
>>
>> >>>>> The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.
>>
>> >>>> But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical
>> >>>> proofs.
>>
>> >>> Which cosmologists are these?
>>
>> >> There are several models of the universe, and IIRC all of them
>> >> provide for a curvature. The exception would be the universe
>> >> described as a Euclidean space, but I don't think any cosmologists
>> >> buy into that particular theory. The question is not "is the universe
>> >> curved", but "how exactly is it curved?"
>>
>> >Yep, but Lobby Dosser was asserting that they had decreed it to be flat
>> >and
>> >I want to know which particular cosmologists _he_ has in mind.
>>
>> Those following the Cosmo-line, I guess. But it's a sticky subject.
>
>Are you stringing us along?
>
>=========================================================
>
>A String Theorist!
>

One string, two strings, three strings, four.

Viola! It's music to my ears.

"Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 01/06/2010 04:47 PM, RonB wrote:
>> Al Gore take note.
>>
>> Kansas gets cold, but sub zero in the southeastern part of the state
>> is unusual. Occasionally, we might see -1 or -3 and that is fairly
>> rare (one or two times/year, if at all.) We make up for the really
>> cold temperatures with wind.
>
> There is a difference between weather and climate.


Anyone mention climate?

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Leon" wrote
>>>
>>> AAMOF Polar Bears were actually found in Texas, rounded up and returned
>>> to their northern home as mentioned in a recent Texas magazine
>>> publication.
>> You guys had a polar bear invasion?? I never heard of that. They didn't
>> walk all the way to Texas did they?
>>
>> Now this is a nature story that my missus would love to hear about. Any
>> details?


Now to qualify haveing more time to look at the piece again, it is hard to
tell if it actually happened but they do say "beliece it or not" all of that
happened. I would say that any Texan would not be suprised about the ants.
;~)

On 1/6/2010 5:56 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

> I question any conclusion when some one tells me there is a 0.4 degree
> warming trend when at any given time the temperature variation across
> the total face of the earth on any given day is is over 100 degrees.
> Based on the precision of the average temperature measurements that is
> insignificant. If you know nothing else about statistic do the Student's
> T test on the data. In this data t = <0.1 to be significant it would
> need to be greater that 2.8. I suspect there would be that much variance
> (0,4 degrees)in the temperature with in a couple of hundred feet of any
> one temperature measurement point

Uhh, uhm, Keith ... if you please, this is not science, this is
politicoreligousity.

Please keep that in mind when introducing scientific reasoning and
accountability into an AGW discussions.

The cabal thanks you ...

<there is no cabal>

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 17:26:48 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
Snip


>>
>>AGW.... Al Ghore Witchcraft?
>
> Androgynous alGore Whorosity?
>
> Ackshully, you guys are missing the proper acronym. It's AGWK, or
> Anthropomorphic Global Warming, Kumbaya. You must pray afterward and
> anthro means man-made. We killed the planet and we're all gonna die!
>
> The only problem is, the water and air in the USA are cleaner now,
> with more population, than they were 30 years ago. The USA now has
> more forested land than it did a century ago. We have more people but
> the farms are more productive. We recycle a whole lot and we have no
> shortages of minerals. The idiot alarmists are wrong on absolutely
> everything they spout off about.
>
> For more REAL info, see Bailey's _Earth Report 2000_ and Huber's _Hard
> Green_. I wish everyone on the planet could read them. Then we could
> sit down and talk about how to truly fix our problems. People don't
> have to die from the "solutions".
>
> --
> We rightly care about the environment. But our neurotic obsession
> with carbon betrays an inability to distinguish between pollution
> and the stuff of life itself. --Bret Stephens, WSJ 1/5/10

And just to put a different spin on things. This flock of sheep that buy
into the global warming hoax are actually causing the problem themselves by
their actions. When we were poluting something fierce back in in the 50's
60's and 70's we had no global warming. It was not until we started BS
programs to clean up the environment that we caused GW.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:18:13 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
>
>> As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a house,
>> surveying a lot, plowing a field, laying out a road, building a
>> railroad (except for the hills), and so on.
>
> I can assure you that surveyors do take into account the curvature or
> the Earth because the distance between lines of longitude varies with
> the distance from the equator. I did surveying software back in the
> '70s and know whereof I speak :-).

Correct. Surveyors DO take into account curvature. But not for "surveying a
lot."

For small distances (say, surveying a section) the difference is
undetectable. I did map creation back in the 60's for marine seismic
surveys. For most surveys, up to about 100 miles or so, there was no
discernable difference even when using different projections (Mercator,
Universal Transverse Mercator, Lambert, etc.).

Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 8, 4:51 pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:5ee212db-8dd0-45c3-8273-c8bee77857fd@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 8, 1:47 pm, [email protected] (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Zootal wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the universe
>>>>>>>>> is Flat.
>>>>>>>> The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.
>>>>>>> But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical
>>>>>>> proofs.
>>>>>> Which cosmologists are these?
>>>>> There are several models of the universe, and IIRC all of them
>>>>> provide for a curvature. The exception would be the universe
>>>>> described as a Euclidean space, but I don't think any cosmologists
>>>>> buy into that particular theory. The question is not "is the universe
>>>>> curved", but "how exactly is it curved?"
>>>> Yep, but Lobby Dosser was asserting that they had decreed it to be flat
>>>> and
>>>> I want to know which particular cosmologists _he_ has in mind.
>>> Those following the Cosmo-line, I guess. But it's a sticky subject.
>> Are you stringing us along?
>>
>> =========================================================
>>
>> A String Theorist!
>
> I doubt I have enough branes for that.
Well certainly not enough charm...

In article <[email protected]>,
J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>Zootal wrote:
>>>>>> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the universe
>>>>>> is Flat.
>>>>>
>>>>> The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical
>>>> proofs.
>>>
>>> Which cosmologists are these?
>>
>> There are several models of the universe, and IIRC all of them
>> provide for a curvature. The exception would be the universe
>> described as a Euclidean space, but I don't think any cosmologists
>> buy into that particular theory. The question is not "is the universe
>> curved", but "how exactly is it curved?"
>
>Yep, but Lobby Dosser was asserting that they had decreed it to be flat and
>I want to know which particular cosmologists _he_ has in mind.

Those following the Cosmo-line, I guess. But it's a sticky subject.

On 1/6/2010 7:02 PM, Doug Miller wrote:

> Science does not operate by majority vote. Science operates by making a
> hypothesis, then testing it to see if it yields correct or incorrect
> predictions about the behavior of the real world.
>
> There was a time when> 95% of the world's geologists believed that continents
> were fixed in place and did not move.
>
> There was a time when nearly 100% of the world's population, scientists and
> otherwise, believed the earth to be flat.
>
> If a position is based upon percentage agreement, it may be politics, it may
> be faith, it may be lunacy -- but it is not science.

Absolute, pure, unadulterated .... PITHY!

Well said, Doug!!!


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Zootal wrote:
>>>>>> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the universe
>>>>>> is Flat.
>>>>>
>>>>> The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical
>>>> proofs.
>>>
>>> Which cosmologists are these?
>>
>> There are several models of the universe, and IIRC all of them
>> provide for a curvature. The exception would be the universe
>> described as a Euclidean space, but I don't think any cosmologists
>> buy into that particular theory. The question is not "is the universe
>> curved", but "how exactly is it curved?"
>
> Yep, but Lobby Dosser was asserting that they had decreed it to be flat
> and
> I want to know which particular cosmologists _he_ has in mind.
>

Well, the universe is curved more on the left side, and excessive curvature
is known to cause mental instability. Hence the global warming hysteria,
campaigns to save the spotted owl, and all kinds of lunacy from the left :-)

On Jan 6, 6:05=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Uhh, uhm, Keith ... if you please, this is not science, this is
> politicoreligousity.
>
> Please keep that in mind when introducing scientific reasoning and
> accountability into an AGW discussions.
>
> The cabal thanks you ...
>
> <there is no cabal>
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)

When 95% of the world's climatologists agree on this I have to believe
them. When 95% of the world's politicians agree on something, there's
still room for doubt.
Nantz

On Jan 8, 4:51=A0pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:5ee212db-8dd0-45c3-8273-c8bee77857fd@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 8, 1:47 pm, [email protected] (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
>
> > J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >Zootal wrote:
> > >>>>>> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the universe
> > >>>>>> is Flat.
>
> > >>>>> The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.
>
> > >>>> But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical
> > >>>> proofs.
>
> > >>> Which cosmologists are these?
>
> > >> There are several models of the universe, and IIRC all of them
> > >> provide for a curvature. The exception would be the universe
> > >> described as a Euclidean space, but I don't think any cosmologists
> > >> buy into that particular theory. The question is not "is the univers=
e
> > >> curved", but "how exactly is it curved?"
>
> > >Yep, but Lobby Dosser was asserting that they had decreed it to be fla=
t
> > >and
> > >I want to know which particular cosmologists _he_ has in mind.
>
> > Those following the Cosmo-line, I guess. But it's a sticky subject.
>
> Are you stringing us along?
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> A String Theorist!

I doubt I have enough branes for that.

On Jan 13, 4:34=A0am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > LDosser wrote:
> >> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>> LDosser wrote:
> >>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>> LDosser wrote:
> >>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>>>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> :-) Mariners knew
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what other explanation can there be for the fact that you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can see the masts of a distant
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cultures, though, had no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be answered
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> by positing a hill (of water) between the ships.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there be,"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance of any other possibility is not a proof. Sherlock
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Holmes said: "If you eliminate all other possibilities,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever is left must be the answer" is correct as far as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it goes. The fact remains that one cannot eliminate all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> other possibilities. There always remain the cases of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> miracles, hallucination, lies, mistakes, and a host of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> others. Absence of evidence is not evidence of anything.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> house, surveying a lot, plowing a field, laying out a road,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> building a railroad (except for the hills), and so on. Just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> like Newtonian mechanics are the ultimate truths for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> bowling, billiards, or shooting a scrot who breaks into
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> your shed.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> universe is Flat.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical
> >>>>>>>>>> proofs.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Which cosmologists are these?
>
> >>>>>>>> Sean Carroll for one.
>
> >>>>>>> In what paper did Sean Carroll offer a mathematical proof that
> >>>>>>> spacetime is
> >>>>>>> flat?
>
> >>>>>> The Hillsboro Argus
>
> >>>>> Do you have someting peer-reviewed?
>
> >>>> Nope. Heard it in a lecture.
>
> >>> Are you sure you understood correctly? =A0Carroll seems to accept
> >>> General Relativity, which does not allow flat spacetime in a real
> >>> universe.
>
> >> Space, not space-time. And it's an approximation.
>
> > Yes, it is an appproximation and it is one which is not valid when
> > computing
> > the orbit of Mercury.
>
> What use is the orbit of Mercury to a cosmologist?

It was used to "prove" the validity of Einstein's Theory of General
Relativity. GR is quite useful for cosmologists. ;-)

On Jan 6, 5:58=A0pm, Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 01/06/2010 04:47 PM, RonB wrote:
>
> > Al Gore take note.
>
> > Kansas gets cold, but sub zero in the southeastern part of the state
> > is unusual. =A0 Occasionally, we might see -1 or -3 and that is fairly
> > rare (one or two times/year, if at all.) =A0We make up for the really
> > cold temperatures with wind.
>
> There is a difference between weather and climate.
>
> Also, the world is bigger than just North America. =A02009 was Australia'=
s
> 3rd hottest year on record since 1910 (and the warmest winter on
> record). =A0It was South Korea's 5th warmest since 1912. =A0There are
> probably other similar stats but those were just the first couple hits I
> found.
>
> Chris

If the cold air is moving FROM the Arctic, could that warm the Arctic?
Isn't that what Al Ghore is all in a tizzy about? You know, The Burj
Dubai getting completely flooded <G>

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:02:41 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:

> There was a time when nearly 100% of the world's population, scientists
> and otherwise, believed the earth to be flat.

Well, the Greeks certainly knew the Earth was round - one of them
measured it :-).

You must be speaking of the Middle Ages. There were no scientists then,
the church wouldn't allow it. There were some in Arab countries, but the
only ones I know of were mathematicians. Someone who knows more about
Arab science of those times can chime in here.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Jan 8, 8:13=A0am, RonB <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's winter in Kansas
>
> Oh =A0the gentle breezes blow
> Seventy miles an hour
> And twenty-five =A0below.
>
> Oh, how I love Kansas
> When the =A0snow's up to your butt
> You take a =A0breath of winter
> And your =A0nose gets frozen =A0shut.
>
> Yes, the weather here is wonderful
> So I guess =A0I'll hang around
> I could =A0never leave Kansas
> Cuz I'm frozen to =A0the ground!

I just got the same verse about Vermont. BTW, did yours have a
picture of an ice sculpture outhouse, complete with occupant?

On 1/6/2010 5:58 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 01/06/2010 04:47 PM, RonB wrote:
>> Al Gore take note.
>>
>> Kansas gets cold, but sub zero in the southeastern part of the state
>> is unusual. Occasionally, we might see -1 or -3 and that is fairly
>> rare (one or two times/year, if at all.) We make up for the really
>> cold temperatures with wind.
>
> There is a difference between weather and climate.
>
> Also, the world is bigger than just North America. 2009 was Australia's
> 3rd hottest year on record since 1910 (and the warmest winter on
> record). It was South Korea's 5th warmest since 1912. There are
> probably other similar stats but those were just the first couple hits I
> found.
>
> Chris
I believe if you will read the non algorian news you will find that the
whole northern Hemisphere is experiencing the coldest weather on record.
Record snows in America, Europe and in China.

The best part of the Global warming conference was the fact that obama
had trouble getting back into the US because the airports were closed
because of record snow falls.

I question any conclusion when some one tells me there is a 0.4 degree
warming trend when at any given time the temperature variation across
the total face of the earth on any given day is is over 100 degrees.
Based on the precision of the average temperature measurements that is
insignificant. If you know nothing else about statistic do the
Student's T test on the data. In this data t = <0.1 to be significant it
would need to be greater that 2.8. I suspect there would be that much
variance (0,4 degrees)in the temperature with in a couple of hundred
feet of any one temperature measurement point

In article <af55aad5-38bf-446e-ad1a-7a6d490ae479@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Nantz <[email protected]> wrote:

>When 95% of the world's climatologists agree on this I have to believe
>them. When 95% of the world's politicians agree on something, there's
>still room for doubt.

Science does not operate by majority vote. Science operates by making a
hypothesis, then testing it to see if it yields correct or incorrect
predictions about the behavior of the real world.

There was a time when > 95% of the world's geologists believed that continents
were fixed in place and did not move.

There was a time when nearly 100% of the world's population, scientists and
otherwise, believed the earth to be flat.

If a position is based upon percentage agreement, it may be politics, it may
be faith, it may be lunacy -- but it is not science.

"Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chris Friesen <[email protected]> writes:
>>On 01/06/2010 04:47 PM, RonB wrote:
>>> Al Gore take note.
>>>
>>> Kansas gets cold, but sub zero in the southeastern part of the state
>>> is unusual. Occasionally, we might see -1 or -3 and that is fairly
>>> rare (one or two times/year, if at all.) We make up for the really
>>> cold temperatures with wind.
>>
>>There is a difference between weather and climate.
>>
>>Also, the world is bigger than just North America. 2009 was Australia's
>>3rd hottest year on record since 1910 (and the warmest winter on
>
> Not based on rural stations. see the darwin station analysis. The
> "heat" in 2009 oz is mostly UHI.
>
> scott


South Korea is also experiencing the greatest snowfalls in 70 years.

"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "RonB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:d5c0a5c4-ff01-4563-9006-68b20d4597f7@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> Al Gore take note.
>>
>> Kansas gets cold, but sub zero in the southeastern part of the state
>> is unusual. Occasionally, we might see -1 or -3 and that is fairly
>> rare (one or two times/year, if at all.) We make up for the really
>> cold temperatures with wind.
>>
>> Our next few nights are forecast in the -5 to -10 range. The
>> cattlemen are busy and nervous.
>>
>
> Not going to change anybody's mind. According to the envirowakos, the cold
> weather you are seeing is due to global warming. I still haven't figured
> out how to make ice cubes in my oven but, according to them, it is
> possible. Guess I'm just not doing it right.


If - and it's a big If - the Greenland sheet melts And all of the melt water
dumps into the North Atlantic, the disturbance in oceanic currents could
precipitate an Ice Age over most of Europe. The rest of the northern
hemisphere might or might not follow. In this case there will be Falling sea
levels and we'll need to get all the island economies to repay they aid
they've been given.

In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:02:41 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> There was a time when nearly 100% of the world's population, scientists
>> and otherwise, believed the earth to be flat.
>
>Well, the Greeks certainly knew the Earth was round - one of them
>measured it :-).

Aristarchus, I believe it was, and came up with a remarkably accurate
estimate, too, considering the measuring tools he had available to him.
>
>You must be speaking of the Middle Ages.

And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only. :-) Mariners knew
for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved -- what other
explanation can there be for the fact that you can see the masts of a distant
ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring cultures, though, had no
such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat, right?

>There were no scientists then,
>the church wouldn't allow it.

Actually, the main reason science stagnated in the Middle Ages is that once
the Roman Empire fell, *everything* stagnated.

> There were some in Arab countries, but the
>only ones I know of were mathematicians. Someone who knows more about
>Arab science of those times can chime in here.

In article <[email protected]>, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> There was a time when nearly 100% of the world's population,
>> scientists and otherwise, believed the earth to be flat.
>
>It would appear the Flat Earth Society still has an active membership.

:-(

The forums at flatearthsociety.org make entertaining reading -- for a short
time, at least. My tolerance for crazies is rather low, I'm afraid.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:02:41 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> There was a time when nearly 100% of the world's population,
>> scientists and otherwise, believed the earth to be flat.
>
> Well, the Greeks certainly knew the Earth was round - one of them
> measured it :-).
>
> You must be speaking of the Middle Ages. There were no scientists
> then, the church wouldn't allow it. There were some in Arab
> countries, but the only ones I know of were mathematicians. Someone
> who knows more about Arab science of those times can chime in here.

Actually he's talking about either a time long before the Greeks or one that
was made up in a fantasy written by Washington Irving. Columbus defended
his plans to cross the Atlantic to Torquemada, the guy who ran the Spanish
Inquisition at its peak. If there was even a hint of heresy in it do you
think that Torquemada would have signed off on it?

The notion that the church wouldn't allow science is something that was made
up in the 1800s. Modern historians have discovered that this was not the
case. In fact some of the key ideas of modern science came from medieval
monks.

As for the Arabs, they're the ones who came up with the experimental
method--one thing that held back progress in Europe (others being such
things as barbarian raids and plagues and a climate that was friendly to
book-rot) was that the Greco-Roman heritage placed an emphasis on theory
over experiment. The Arabs figured out the experimental method which led to
them pretty much inventing what came to be known as chemistry, as well as
making discoveries in optics, astronomy, and many other fields.

In article <[email protected]>, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Nantz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:af55aad5-38bf-446e-ad1a-7a6d490ae479@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>On Jan 6, 6:05 pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>When 95% of the world's climatologists agree on this I have to believe
>them. When 95% of the world's politicians agree on something, there's
>still room for doubt.
>Nantz
>
>
>Apparently the climatologists are witnessing that they do not have enough
>data to form anything close to an accurate conclusion in their life times.

And that's really the essence of the matter: thinking of climate in
human-centric, rather than planet-centric, terms. The proponents of AGW make
two UNstated assumptions beyond the obvious, stated one that human activity is
causing the earth to get warmer. Both of these unstated assumptions are
unproven at best, and at least one of them is almost certainly wrong:

First, that conditions as they exist now are normal or typical. A good friend
of mine has an MS in geology; he tells me that during most of the planet's
existence, it's been *much* warmer than it is now, and that we're actually
still *in* the last Ice Age.

Second, that conditions as they exist now are optimal and desirable -- that
any change from currrent conditions *must* be a change for the worse. In fact,
most GW models project an increase mostly in nighttime temperatures (IOW,
higher lows), which among other things will lengthen the growing season in
many parts of the world, and make agriculture possible in places where it is
not now. This strikes me as a Good Thing, not a Bad Thing.

HeyBub wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> "Nantz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:af55aad5-38bf-446e-ad1a-7a6d490ae479@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 6, 6:05 pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> When 95% of the world's climatologists agree on this I have to
>> believe them. When 95% of the world's politicians agree on
>> something, there's still room for doubt.
>> Nantz
>>
>>
>> Apparently the climatologists are witnessing that they do not have
>> enough data to form anything close to an accurate conclusion in their
>> life times.
>
> Less than 50 years ago, 100% of geologists were convinced of the
> theory of "continental drift." In was only in the 1960's that the
> notion of "Plate Tectonics" became popular. Now 100% of geologists do
> NOT accept continental drift.

Uh, try that one again. "Plate tectonics" _is_ "continental drift".

<remainder trimmed>

On 1/7/2010 12:32 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:18:13 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
>
>> As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a house, surveying
>> a lot, plowing a field, laying out a road, building a railroad (except
>> for the hills), and so on.
>
> I can assure you that surveyors do take into account the curvature or the
> Earth because the distance between lines of longitude varies with the
> distance from the equator. I did surveying software back in the '70s and
> know whereof I speak :-).
>
>
>
If you live in the mid west you will find many slight jogs in the back
roads where they cross township lines. These jogs will only be a couple
of dozen feet. I have been told they were caused by the surveyors
adjustment for he decreasing length of the longitude.

These slight jogs can be seen in most states in the mid west. They are
easily found in those area that are flat like the area east of Fort
Wayne Indiana. Use Google earth and trace the back roads north, you
will see many of the jogs. (The main roads once also had these jogs, but
years of improvements have removed them.

Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 1/7/2010 12:32 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:18:13 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
>>
>>> As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a house, surveying
>>> a lot, plowing a field, laying out a road, building a railroad (except
>>> for the hills), and so on.
>>
>> I can assure you that surveyors do take into account the curvature or the
>> Earth because the distance between lines of longitude varies with the
>> distance from the equator. I did surveying software back in the '70s and
>> know whereof I speak :-).
>>
>>
>>
> If you live in the mid west you will find many slight jogs in the back
> roads where they cross township lines. These jogs will only be a couple
> of dozen feet. I have been told they were caused by the surveyors
> adjustment for he decreasing length of the longitude.
>
> These slight jogs can be seen in most states in the mid west. They are
> easily found in those area that are flat like the area east of Fort
> Wayne Indiana. Use Google earth and trace the back roads north, you
> will see many of the jogs. (The main roads once also had these jogs, but
> years of improvements have removed them.

Indeedy, doo...

Generally out here they apparently "saved up" over larger distances so
most correction-line adjustments are quite a bit larger than 20-30 ft;
more like 1/8-th or 16-th of a mile. I'd actually guess they were
actually in a fixed number of chains or rods; I'd have to research what
the standard measure was when this area (far SW KS) was surveyed.

And, on (B), they may have smoothed out or rounded off the square
section-line corners, but even the US highways still have easily
discernible correction-line jogs to this day (and likely will for quite
a long time to come).

--

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:17:49 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> The notion that the church wouldn't allow science is something that
>> was made up in the 1800s. Modern historians have discovered that
>> this was not the case. In fact some of the key ideas of modern
>> science came from medieval monks.
>
> "But it *does* move!" Quote from a somewhat famous heresy trial.

Actually that's what he was purported to have said on his deathbed.

That particular trial, however, occurred after the Renaissance, which marked
the end of the Middle Ages, so it's difficult to use that particular trial
to support an assertion about suppression of science in the Middle Ages.

In any case, Galileo was tried mainly because he went out of his way to piss
off the Church--he may not have intended to but he managed it anyway--today
he'd have fit in just fine in the community of annoying netloons who even if
they are right get ignored because the alienate everybody who comes in
contact with them. If he'd listened to advice and followed the rules, one
of which is that if you want to say something contrary to doctrine you
present it as an idea to be discussed, not as an absolute truth, and let the
heirarchy beat on it at their leisure, then he'd have been in no trouble at
all, but he didn't do that. It didn't help that when he finally did add a
disclaimer to that effect he did it in a manner which could be regarded as a
sarcastic stab at the Pope, and that's exactly how the Pope interpreted it.

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>> And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only. :-)
>> Mariners knew
>> for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved -- what other
>> explanation can there be for the fact that you can see the masts of a
>> distant
>> ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring cultures,
>> though, had no
>> such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat, right?
>
> The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be answered by positing a
> hill (of water) between the ships.
>
> As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there be," ignorance of
> any other possibility is not a proof. Sherlock Holmes said: "If you
> eliminate all other possibilities, whatever is left must be the answer" is
> correct as far as it goes. The fact remains that one cannot eliminate all
> other possibilities. There always remain the cases of miracles,
> hallucination, lies, mistakes, and a host of others. Absence of evidence
> is not evidence of anything.
>
> As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a house, surveying a
> lot, plowing a field, laying out a road, building a railroad (except for
> the hills), and so on. Just like Newtonian mechanics are the ultimate
> truths for bowling, billiards, or shooting a scrot who breaks into your
> shed.
>
>


Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the universe is Flat.

LDosser wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only. :-)
>>> Mariners knew
>>> for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved -- what
>>> other explanation can there be for the fact that you can see the
>>> masts of a distant
>>> ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring cultures,
>>> though, had no
>>> such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat, right?
>>
>> The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be answered by
>> positing a hill (of water) between the ships.
>>
>> As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there be,"
>> ignorance of any other possibility is not a proof. Sherlock Holmes
>> said: "If you eliminate all other possibilities, whatever is left
>> must be the answer" is correct as far as it goes. The fact remains
>> that one cannot eliminate all other possibilities. There always
>> remain the cases of miracles, hallucination, lies, mistakes, and a
>> host of others. Absence of evidence is not evidence of anything.
>>
>> As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a house,
>> surveying a lot, plowing a field, laying out a road, building a
>> railroad (except for the hills), and so on. Just like Newtonian
>> mechanics are the ultimate truths for bowling, billiards, or
>> shooting a scrot who breaks into your shed.
>>
>>
>
>
> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the universe is
> Flat.

The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jan 7, 5:54 pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Doug Miller wrote:
>
> >> And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only. :-)
> >> Mariners knew
> >> for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved -- what other
> >> explanation can there be for the fact that you can see the masts of a
> >> distant
> >> ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring cultures,
> >> though, had no
> >> such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat, right?
>
> > The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be answered by positing
> > a
> > hill (of water) between the ships.
>
> > As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there be," ignorance of
> > any other possibility is not a proof. Sherlock Holmes said: "If you
> > eliminate all other possibilities, whatever is left must be the answer"
> > is
> > correct as far as it goes. The fact remains that one cannot eliminate
> > all
> > other possibilities. There always remain the cases of miracles,
> > hallucination, lies, mistakes, and a host of others. Absence of evidence
> > is not evidence of anything.
>
> > As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a house, surveying
> > a
> > lot, plowing a field, laying out a road, building a railroad (except for
> > the hills), and so on. Just like Newtonian mechanics are the ultimate
> > truths for bowling, billiards, or shooting a scrot who breaks into your
> > shed.
>
> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the universe is Flat.

Vertical or horizontal?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Depends if you're going uphill or down.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LDosser wrote:
>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only. :-)
>>>> Mariners knew
>>>> for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved -- what
>>>> other explanation can there be for the fact that you can see the
>>>> masts of a distant
>>>> ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring cultures,
>>>> though, had no
>>>> such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat, right?
>>>
>>> The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be answered by
>>> positing a hill (of water) between the ships.
>>>
>>> As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there be,"
>>> ignorance of any other possibility is not a proof. Sherlock Holmes
>>> said: "If you eliminate all other possibilities, whatever is left
>>> must be the answer" is correct as far as it goes. The fact remains
>>> that one cannot eliminate all other possibilities. There always
>>> remain the cases of miracles, hallucination, lies, mistakes, and a
>>> host of others. Absence of evidence is not evidence of anything.
>>>
>>> As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a house,
>>> surveying a lot, plowing a field, laying out a road, building a
>>> railroad (except for the hills), and so on. Just like Newtonian
>>> mechanics are the ultimate truths for bowling, billiards, or
>>> shooting a scrot who breaks into your shed.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the universe is
>> Flat.
>
> The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.


But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical proofs.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Leon" wrote
>>>
>>> AAMOF Polar Bears were actually found in Texas, rounded up and returned
>>> to their northern home as mentioned in a recent Texas magazine
>>> publication.
>> You guys had a polar bear invasion?? I never heard of that. They didn't
>> walk all the way to Texas did they?
>>
>> Now this is a nature story that my missus would love to hear about. Any
>> details?
>>
>
> Texas Parks and Wildlife
>
> http://www.tpwmagazine.com/ktw/media/january-10-vol.2-issue5.pdf
>
> Near the picture of the lizard, the box titled Damage Doers. Read the
> entire box. ;~)
>
>

What is Spike when he's at home?

LDosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> LDosser wrote:
>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only. :-)
>>>>> Mariners knew
>>>>> for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved -- what
>>>>> other explanation can there be for the fact that you can see the
>>>>> masts of a distant
>>>>> ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring cultures,
>>>>> though, had no
>>>>> such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat, right?
>>>>
>>>> The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be answered by
>>>> positing a hill (of water) between the ships.
>>>>
>>>> As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there be,"
>>>> ignorance of any other possibility is not a proof. Sherlock Holmes
>>>> said: "If you eliminate all other possibilities, whatever is left
>>>> must be the answer" is correct as far as it goes. The fact remains
>>>> that one cannot eliminate all other possibilities. There always
>>>> remain the cases of miracles, hallucination, lies, mistakes, and a
>>>> host of others. Absence of evidence is not evidence of anything.
>>>>
>>>> As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a house,
>>>> surveying a lot, plowing a field, laying out a road, building a
>>>> railroad (except for the hills), and so on. Just like Newtonian
>>>> mechanics are the ultimate truths for bowling, billiards, or
>>>> shooting a scrot who breaks into your shed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the universe is
>>> Flat.
>>
>> The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.
>
>
> But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical proofs.

Which cosmologists are these?

Zootal wrote:
>>>>> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the universe
>>>>> is Flat.
>>>>
>>>> The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.
>>>
>>>
>>> But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical
>>> proofs.
>>
>> Which cosmologists are these?
>
> There are several models of the universe, and IIRC all of them
> provide for a curvature. The exception would be the universe
> described as a Euclidean space, but I don't think any cosmologists
> buy into that particular theory. The question is not "is the universe
> curved", but "how exactly is it curved?"

Yep, but Lobby Dosser was asserting that they had decreed it to be flat and
I want to know which particular cosmologists _he_ has in mind.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LDosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only. :-)
>>>>>> Mariners knew
>>>>>> for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved -- what
>>>>>> other explanation can there be for the fact that you can see the
>>>>>> masts of a distant
>>>>>> ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring cultures,
>>>>>> though, had no
>>>>>> such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be answered by
>>>>> positing a hill (of water) between the ships.
>>>>>
>>>>> As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there be,"
>>>>> ignorance of any other possibility is not a proof. Sherlock Holmes
>>>>> said: "If you eliminate all other possibilities, whatever is left
>>>>> must be the answer" is correct as far as it goes. The fact remains
>>>>> that one cannot eliminate all other possibilities. There always
>>>>> remain the cases of miracles, hallucination, lies, mistakes, and a
>>>>> host of others. Absence of evidence is not evidence of anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a house,
>>>>> surveying a lot, plowing a field, laying out a road, building a
>>>>> railroad (except for the hills), and so on. Just like Newtonian
>>>>> mechanics are the ultimate truths for bowling, billiards, or
>>>>> shooting a scrot who breaks into your shed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the universe is
>>>> Flat.
>>>
>>> The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.
>>
>>
>> But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical proofs.
>
> Which cosmologists are these?


Sean Carroll for one.

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:5ee212db-8dd0-45c3-8273-c8bee77857fd@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 8, 1:47 pm, [email protected] (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
>
>
>
>
> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Zootal wrote:
> >>>>>> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the universe
> >>>>>> is Flat.
>
> >>>>> The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.
>
> >>>> But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical
> >>>> proofs.
>
> >>> Which cosmologists are these?
>
> >> There are several models of the universe, and IIRC all of them
> >> provide for a curvature. The exception would be the universe
> >> described as a Euclidean space, but I don't think any cosmologists
> >> buy into that particular theory. The question is not "is the universe
> >> curved", but "how exactly is it curved?"
>
> >Yep, but Lobby Dosser was asserting that they had decreed it to be flat
> >and
> >I want to know which particular cosmologists _he_ has in mind.
>
> Those following the Cosmo-line, I guess. But it's a sticky subject.

Are you stringing us along?

=========================================================

A String Theorist!

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:b9728ad5-3ebf-4215-aadf-6311fb3e7c64@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 8, 4:51 pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:5ee212db-8dd0-45c3-8273-c8bee77857fd@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 8, 1:47 pm, [email protected] (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
>
> > J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >Zootal wrote:
> > >>>>>> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the universe
> > >>>>>> is Flat.
>
> > >>>>> The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.
>
> > >>>> But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical
> > >>>> proofs.
>
> > >>> Which cosmologists are these?
>
> > >> There are several models of the universe, and IIRC all of them
> > >> provide for a curvature. The exception would be the universe
> > >> described as a Euclidean space, but I don't think any cosmologists
> > >> buy into that particular theory. The question is not "is the universe
> > >> curved", but "how exactly is it curved?"
>
> > >Yep, but Lobby Dosser was asserting that they had decreed it to be flat
> > >and
> > >I want to know which particular cosmologists _he_ has in mind.
>
> > Those following the Cosmo-line, I guess. But it's a sticky subject.
>
> Are you stringing us along?
>
> =========================================================
>
> A String Theorist!

I doubt I have enough branes for that.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oooo! LOL!

LDosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> LDosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only. :-)
>>>>>>> Mariners knew
>>>>>>> for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved -- what
>>>>>>> other explanation can there be for the fact that you can see the
>>>>>>> masts of a distant
>>>>>>> ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring cultures,
>>>>>>> though, had no
>>>>>>> such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be answered by
>>>>>> positing a hill (of water) between the ships.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there be,"
>>>>>> ignorance of any other possibility is not a proof. Sherlock
>>>>>> Holmes said: "If you eliminate all other possibilities, whatever
>>>>>> is left must be the answer" is correct as far as it goes. The
>>>>>> fact remains that one cannot eliminate all other possibilities.
>>>>>> There always remain the cases of miracles, hallucination, lies,
>>>>>> mistakes, and a host of others. Absence of evidence is not
>>>>>> evidence of anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a house,
>>>>>> surveying a lot, plowing a field, laying out a road, building a
>>>>>> railroad (except for the hills), and so on. Just like Newtonian
>>>>>> mechanics are the ultimate truths for bowling, billiards, or
>>>>>> shooting a scrot who breaks into your shed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the universe
>>>>> is Flat.
>>>>
>>>> The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.
>>>
>>>
>>> But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical
>>> proofs.
>>
>> Which cosmologists are these?
>
>
> Sean Carroll for one.

In what paper did Sean Carroll offer a mathematical proof that spacetime is
flat?

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LDosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only. :-)
>>>>>>>> Mariners knew
>>>>>>>> for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved -- what
>>>>>>>> other explanation can there be for the fact that you can see the
>>>>>>>> masts of a distant
>>>>>>>> ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring cultures,
>>>>>>>> though, had no
>>>>>>>> such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be answered by
>>>>>>> positing a hill (of water) between the ships.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there be,"
>>>>>>> ignorance of any other possibility is not a proof. Sherlock
>>>>>>> Holmes said: "If you eliminate all other possibilities, whatever
>>>>>>> is left must be the answer" is correct as far as it goes. The
>>>>>>> fact remains that one cannot eliminate all other possibilities.
>>>>>>> There always remain the cases of miracles, hallucination, lies,
>>>>>>> mistakes, and a host of others. Absence of evidence is not
>>>>>>> evidence of anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a house,
>>>>>>> surveying a lot, plowing a field, laying out a road, building a
>>>>>>> railroad (except for the hills), and so on. Just like Newtonian
>>>>>>> mechanics are the ultimate truths for bowling, billiards, or
>>>>>>> shooting a scrot who breaks into your shed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the universe
>>>>>> is Flat.
>>>>>
>>>>> The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical
>>>> proofs.
>>>
>>> Which cosmologists are these?
>>
>>
>> Sean Carroll for one.
>
> In what paper did Sean Carroll offer a mathematical proof that spacetime
> is
> flat?
>


The Hillsboro Argus

LDosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> LDosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only. :-)
>>>>>>>>> Mariners knew
>>>>>>>>> for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved --
>>>>>>>>> what other explanation can there be for the fact that you can
>>>>>>>>> see the masts of a distant
>>>>>>>>> ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring
>>>>>>>>> cultures, though, had no
>>>>>>>>> such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat, right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be answered by
>>>>>>>> positing a hill (of water) between the ships.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there be,"
>>>>>>>> ignorance of any other possibility is not a proof. Sherlock
>>>>>>>> Holmes said: "If you eliminate all other possibilities,
>>>>>>>> whatever is left must be the answer" is correct as far as it
>>>>>>>> goes. The fact remains that one cannot eliminate all other
>>>>>>>> possibilities. There always remain the cases of miracles,
>>>>>>>> hallucination, lies, mistakes, and a host of others. Absence
>>>>>>>> of evidence is not evidence of anything.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a house,
>>>>>>>> surveying a lot, plowing a field, laying out a road, building a
>>>>>>>> railroad (except for the hills), and so on. Just like Newtonian
>>>>>>>> mechanics are the ultimate truths for bowling, billiards, or
>>>>>>>> shooting a scrot who breaks into your shed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the universe
>>>>>>> is Flat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical
>>>>> proofs.
>>>>
>>>> Which cosmologists are these?
>>>
>>>
>>> Sean Carroll for one.
>>
>> In what paper did Sean Carroll offer a mathematical proof that
>> spacetime is
>> flat?
>>
>
>
> The Hillsboro Argus

Do you have someting peer-reviewed?

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LDosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only. :-)
>>>>>>>>>> Mariners knew
>>>>>>>>>> for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved --
>>>>>>>>>> what other explanation can there be for the fact that you can
>>>>>>>>>> see the masts of a distant
>>>>>>>>>> ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring
>>>>>>>>>> cultures, though, had no
>>>>>>>>>> such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat, right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be answered by
>>>>>>>>> positing a hill (of water) between the ships.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there be,"
>>>>>>>>> ignorance of any other possibility is not a proof. Sherlock
>>>>>>>>> Holmes said: "If you eliminate all other possibilities,
>>>>>>>>> whatever is left must be the answer" is correct as far as it
>>>>>>>>> goes. The fact remains that one cannot eliminate all other
>>>>>>>>> possibilities. There always remain the cases of miracles,
>>>>>>>>> hallucination, lies, mistakes, and a host of others. Absence
>>>>>>>>> of evidence is not evidence of anything.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a house,
>>>>>>>>> surveying a lot, plowing a field, laying out a road, building a
>>>>>>>>> railroad (except for the hills), and so on. Just like Newtonian
>>>>>>>>> mechanics are the ultimate truths for bowling, billiards, or
>>>>>>>>> shooting a scrot who breaks into your shed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the universe
>>>>>>>> is Flat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical
>>>>>> proofs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which cosmologists are these?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sean Carroll for one.
>>>
>>> In what paper did Sean Carroll offer a mathematical proof that
>>> spacetime is
>>> flat?
>>>
>>
>>
>> The Hillsboro Argus
>
> Do you have someting peer-reviewed?


Nope. Heard it in a lecture.

LDosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> LDosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only.
>>>>>>>>>>> :-) Mariners knew
>>>>>>>>>>> for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved --
>>>>>>>>>>> what other explanation can there be for the fact that you
>>>>>>>>>>> can see the masts of a distant
>>>>>>>>>>> ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring
>>>>>>>>>>> cultures, though, had no
>>>>>>>>>>> such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat,
>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be answered
>>>>>>>>>> by positing a hill (of water) between the ships.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there be,"
>>>>>>>>>> ignorance of any other possibility is not a proof. Sherlock
>>>>>>>>>> Holmes said: "If you eliminate all other possibilities,
>>>>>>>>>> whatever is left must be the answer" is correct as far as it
>>>>>>>>>> goes. The fact remains that one cannot eliminate all other
>>>>>>>>>> possibilities. There always remain the cases of miracles,
>>>>>>>>>> hallucination, lies, mistakes, and a host of others. Absence
>>>>>>>>>> of evidence is not evidence of anything.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a
>>>>>>>>>> house, surveying a lot, plowing a field, laying out a road,
>>>>>>>>>> building a railroad (except for the hills), and so on. Just
>>>>>>>>>> like Newtonian mechanics are the ultimate truths for
>>>>>>>>>> bowling, billiards, or shooting a scrot who breaks into your
>>>>>>>>>> shed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the
>>>>>>>>> universe is Flat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical
>>>>>>> proofs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which cosmologists are these?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sean Carroll for one.
>>>>
>>>> In what paper did Sean Carroll offer a mathematical proof that
>>>> spacetime is
>>>> flat?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Hillsboro Argus
>>
>> Do you have someting peer-reviewed?
>
>
> Nope. Heard it in a lecture.

Are you sure you understood correctly? Carroll seems to accept General
Relativity, which does not allow flat spacetime in a real universe.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LDosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only.
>>>>>>>>>>>> :-) Mariners knew
>>>>>>>>>>>> for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved --
>>>>>>>>>>>> what other explanation can there be for the fact that you
>>>>>>>>>>>> can see the masts of a distant
>>>>>>>>>>>> ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring
>>>>>>>>>>>> cultures, though, had no
>>>>>>>>>>>> such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat,
>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be answered
>>>>>>>>>>> by positing a hill (of water) between the ships.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there be,"
>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance of any other possibility is not a proof. Sherlock
>>>>>>>>>>> Holmes said: "If you eliminate all other possibilities,
>>>>>>>>>>> whatever is left must be the answer" is correct as far as it
>>>>>>>>>>> goes. The fact remains that one cannot eliminate all other
>>>>>>>>>>> possibilities. There always remain the cases of miracles,
>>>>>>>>>>> hallucination, lies, mistakes, and a host of others. Absence
>>>>>>>>>>> of evidence is not evidence of anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a
>>>>>>>>>>> house, surveying a lot, plowing a field, laying out a road,
>>>>>>>>>>> building a railroad (except for the hills), and so on. Just
>>>>>>>>>>> like Newtonian mechanics are the ultimate truths for
>>>>>>>>>>> bowling, billiards, or shooting a scrot who breaks into your
>>>>>>>>>>> shed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the
>>>>>>>>>> universe is Flat.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical
>>>>>>>> proofs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which cosmologists are these?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sean Carroll for one.
>>>>>
>>>>> In what paper did Sean Carroll offer a mathematical proof that
>>>>> spacetime is
>>>>> flat?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Hillsboro Argus
>>>
>>> Do you have someting peer-reviewed?
>>
>>
>> Nope. Heard it in a lecture.
>
> Are you sure you understood correctly? Carroll seems to accept General
> Relativity, which does not allow flat spacetime in a real universe.
>

Space, not space-time. And it's an approximation.

LDosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> LDosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> :-) Mariners knew
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what other explanation can there be for the fact that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can see the masts of a distant
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cultures, though, had no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be answered
>>>>>>>>>>>> by positing a hill (of water) between the ships.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there be,"
>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance of any other possibility is not a proof. Sherlock
>>>>>>>>>>>> Holmes said: "If you eliminate all other possibilities,
>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever is left must be the answer" is correct as far as
>>>>>>>>>>>> it goes. The fact remains that one cannot eliminate all
>>>>>>>>>>>> other possibilities. There always remain the cases of
>>>>>>>>>>>> miracles, hallucination, lies, mistakes, and a host of
>>>>>>>>>>>> others. Absence of evidence is not evidence of anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a
>>>>>>>>>>>> house, surveying a lot, plowing a field, laying out a road,
>>>>>>>>>>>> building a railroad (except for the hills), and so on. Just
>>>>>>>>>>>> like Newtonian mechanics are the ultimate truths for
>>>>>>>>>>>> bowling, billiards, or shooting a scrot who breaks into
>>>>>>>>>>>> your shed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the
>>>>>>>>>>> universe is Flat.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical
>>>>>>>>> proofs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which cosmologists are these?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sean Carroll for one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In what paper did Sean Carroll offer a mathematical proof that
>>>>>> spacetime is
>>>>>> flat?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Hillsboro Argus
>>>>
>>>> Do you have someting peer-reviewed?
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope. Heard it in a lecture.
>>
>> Are you sure you understood correctly? Carroll seems to accept
>> General Relativity, which does not allow flat spacetime in a real
>> universe.
>>
>
> Space, not space-time. And it's an approximation.

Yes, it is an appproximation and it is one which is not valid when computing
the orbit of Mercury.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LDosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :-) Mariners knew
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what other explanation can there be for the fact that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can see the masts of a distant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cultures, though, had no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be answered
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by positing a hill (of water) between the ships.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there be,"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance of any other possibility is not a proof. Sherlock
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Holmes said: "If you eliminate all other possibilities,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever is left must be the answer" is correct as far as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it goes. The fact remains that one cannot eliminate all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> other possibilities. There always remain the cases of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> miracles, hallucination, lies, mistakes, and a host of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> others. Absence of evidence is not evidence of anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> house, surveying a lot, plowing a field, laying out a road,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> building a railroad (except for the hills), and so on. Just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like Newtonian mechanics are the ultimate truths for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bowling, billiards, or shooting a scrot who breaks into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your shed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> universe is Flat.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical
>>>>>>>>>> proofs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which cosmologists are these?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sean Carroll for one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In what paper did Sean Carroll offer a mathematical proof that
>>>>>>> spacetime is
>>>>>>> flat?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Hillsboro Argus
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have someting peer-reviewed?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Heard it in a lecture.
>>>
>>> Are you sure you understood correctly? Carroll seems to accept
>>> General Relativity, which does not allow flat spacetime in a real
>>> universe.
>>>
>>
>> Space, not space-time. And it's an approximation.
>
> Yes, it is an appproximation and it is one which is not valid when
> computing
> the orbit of Mercury.
>

What use is the orbit of Mercury to a cosmologist?

LDosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> LDosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only. :-) Mariners knew
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- what other explanation can there be for the fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you can see the masts of a distant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cultures, though, had no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answered by positing a hill (of water) between the ships.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be," ignorance of any other possibility is not a proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sherlock Holmes said: "If you eliminate all other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibilities, whatever is left must be the answer" is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct as far as it goes. The fact remains that one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot eliminate all other possibilities. There always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remain the cases of miracles, hallucination, lies,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mistakes, and a host of others. Absence of evidence is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not evidence of anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> house, surveying a lot, plowing a field, laying out a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> road, building a railroad (except for the hills), and so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on. Just like Newtonian mechanics are the ultimate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truths for bowling, billiards, or shooting a scrot who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaks into your shed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe is Flat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of
>>>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered
>>>>>>>>>>> mathematical proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which cosmologists are these?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sean Carroll for one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In what paper did Sean Carroll offer a mathematical proof that
>>>>>>>> spacetime is
>>>>>>>> flat?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Hillsboro Argus
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have someting peer-reviewed?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. Heard it in a lecture.
>>>>
>>>> Are you sure you understood correctly? Carroll seems to accept
>>>> General Relativity, which does not allow flat spacetime in a real
>>>> universe.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Space, not space-time. And it's an approximation.
>>
>> Yes, it is an appproximation and it is one which is not valid when
>> computing
>> the orbit of Mercury.
>>
>
> What use is the orbit of Mercury to a cosmologist?

Do you really care or are you just making conversation?

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:c89e21f1-44ab-4f8e-9f58-97a1b247bb0b@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 13, 4:34 am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > LDosser wrote:
> >> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>> LDosser wrote:
> >>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>> LDosser wrote:
> >>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>>>>>>>> LDosser wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> :-) Mariners knew
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what other explanation can there be for the fact that you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can see the masts of a distant
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cultures, though, had no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be answered
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> by positing a hill (of water) between the ships.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there be,"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance of any other possibility is not a proof. Sherlock
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Holmes said: "If you eliminate all other possibilities,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever is left must be the answer" is correct as far as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it goes. The fact remains that one cannot eliminate all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> other possibilities. There always remain the cases of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> miracles, hallucination, lies, mistakes, and a host of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> others. Absence of evidence is not evidence of anything.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> house, surveying a lot, plowing a field, laying out a road,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> building a railroad (except for the hills), and so on. Just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> like Newtonian mechanics are the ultimate truths for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> bowling, billiards, or shooting a scrot who breaks into
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> your shed.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> universe is Flat.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical
> >>>>>>>>>> proofs.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Which cosmologists are these?
>
> >>>>>>>> Sean Carroll for one.
>
> >>>>>>> In what paper did Sean Carroll offer a mathematical proof that
> >>>>>>> spacetime is
> >>>>>>> flat?
>
> >>>>>> The Hillsboro Argus
>
> >>>>> Do you have someting peer-reviewed?
>
> >>>> Nope. Heard it in a lecture.
>
> >>> Are you sure you understood correctly? Carroll seems to accept
> >>> General Relativity, which does not allow flat spacetime in a real
> >>> universe.
>
> >> Space, not space-time. And it's an approximation.
>
> > Yes, it is an appproximation and it is one which is not valid when
> > computing
> > the orbit of Mercury.
>
> What use is the orbit of Mercury to a cosmologist?

It was used to "prove" the validity of Einstein's Theory of General
Relativity. GR is quite useful for cosmologists. ;-)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's all relative.